User talk:MontgomeryStreet

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MontgomeryStreet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please review my comments- I said nothing inflammatory and merely disagreed with user

Decline reason:

This seems highly likely to be a sockpuppet account. Mango juice^talk 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've left a note for the blocking administrator to comment here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins reviewing should probably read the dialogs here (mostly) and here which contains the blocking admins and others' informal comments, until such time as a proper comment is made here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that any admin considering unblock email me ... there are some details to this I'd rather not share openly. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there you have it- he bans me indefinitely, gives no reason, deletes my posts because they disagree with him and now wants to discuss his power mad trip behind closed doors.MontgomeryStreet (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have some nerve requesting unblock in the first place. You know exactly what I'm discussing behind closed doors (I would suggest you reconsider that Ding Dong Ditch thing, too). Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now threatening me? Reconsider- or what? Your information is posted on Don Murphy's site from when he outed you last week. He got it from a public board. I can't see where you have any complaint at all with how I have behaved. But you want to perform backdoor games, that's fine. But don't you talk about MY nerve sir. MontgomeryStreet (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So at least you admit your purpose in creating this account was harassment, then. Harassment at the tacit behest of a has-been movie producer who's angry that I did the right thing and notified his employer that he was using their server to post threats, libel and abusive language here. He was in the wrong and he knows it. Don Murphy, banned by the Wikipedia community when a similar post on his website resulted in a user's family being harassed to the point he chose to withdraw from the project.

Your choice of words and the creation of your account was meant solely for harassment of myself. Consider who you're doing this for and pick your battles better. Lie down with dogs and you can't complain about the fleas.

Further discussion along this line and I will strongly recommend the page be protected. Every admin who's contacted me about this has agreed completely with the reasons for the indefinite block, BTW. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this user's account as a meatpuppet of banned user ColScott, which should further settle any doubt over why it was blocked indefinitely and will stay that way. The above comment by MontgomeryStreet makes it clear. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]